« PreviousContinue »
first day of any Session of Parliament, the other bishops, of fees not enumerated in the act of Union, might attend in their stead, and should be intitled to receive from the several bishops in whose stead they attended, the sum of 500 pounds to defray the expence of their attendance. The other 39 Irish Lords who should be admitted into the British House of Lords, should be such as were not already British peers, and should be elected by such Irish Lords as were not already British peers. And for the future no new peers should be created for Ireland only, any more than there bave been new peers created for Scotland only since the Union of the two kingdoms in the year 1707 ; but all new peers should be peers of Great-Britain. As to the hundred members to be admitted into the British House of Commons, I should think it would be expedient to permit all the members for Counties to make a part of them, and to fill-up the remainder of the number from some of the most eminent cities and trading-towns in Ireland, such as Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Athlone, Londonderry, Armagh, Waterford, Limerick, Port-Arlington, Kingsale, Lisburne, Inniskillin, Galwảy, Athy, Kilkenny, Wicklow, and Dundalk. This method of composing the Irish members of the British House of Commons would in a great measure operate as a reform in the representation of that house, which is thought by many persons to be a malter of the greatest importance. For there are 34 Counties in Ireland, each of which sends two members to parliament; so that, if this method of composing this addition to the British House of Commons were to be adopted, we should have 68 new members of Counties in that Legislative assembly, which would go a great way towards effecting the improve. ment of its constitution suggested by the late much-admired Minister, the Earl of Chatham, who proposed that an hundred additional members for Counties should be admitt
ed into the British House of Commons, in order, as he expressed it, to infuse new and wholesome blood, that is, new life and independance into it, in opposition to the members for boroughs, who are supposed to be too often seekers of promotion and pecuniary emolument, and to have procured their seats in parliament with a view to advance their fortunes.' This moderate plan of reform, suggested by the Earl of Chatham, has met with the approbation of many persons in England, who are firm friends to our present form of Government by a Limited Monarch with two houses of parliament, a house of Lords and a house of Commons, and are therefore determined enemies of French republicanism, and of all such violent plans of reforming Parliament as, by removing the foundations of our present system by 100 great an extension of the right of election, would naturally tend to introduce it. And this moderate reform would be in a great measure broughtabout by the admission of the 68 members of the Jrish Counties into the British House of Commons, and by the admiffion of the remaining 32 members of the hundred from elections made by the great cities and trading-towns of Ireland, instead of the several paltry, little, boroughs, totally dependent on fome Lord, or rich Commoner, by which, (as I have always heard,) the members for boroughs in the Irish Parliament are now elected. As to the Lords and rich Commoners who have influence enough to nominale the members for the boroughs that, upon this plan, would be deprived of their right of election, I would propose that they and their voters should receive a sum of money from the publick treasury, either of Great-Britain or Ireland, in compensation of the loss of their privileges ; just as the proprietors of certain hereditary Jurisdictions in Scotland, that were found to be prejudicial to the tranquillity of the kingdom, were bought-out of them with publick money after the Scotch rebellion about fifty years ago ; an event, Mr. Printer, that I well remember. I presume one million of pounds sterling would be sufficient for this purpose; and I Mould be glad to see it so employed, even though it was advanced out of the English treasury.
In the second place, I conceive it ought to be ftipulated in the act of Union, if this beneficial measure shall be adopted, that all the debts of the kingdom of Ireland already contracted at the time of the Union, shall be paid, or provided-for, by taxes raised in Ireland, and all the debts of Great-Britain already contracted at the time of the Union, thall be paid, or provided - for, by taxes raised in Great-Brirain; but that all debts to be contracted after the Union shall be considered as belonging to the whole united kingdom of Great-Britain and Ireland, and be paid, or provided-for, by taxes raised in both countries. This woult be necessary to remove from the minds of the Irish nation the apprehension of being obliged to bear a part of the burthen of the enormous publick debt already incurred by Great Britain.
In the third place I conceive that the tythes due to the Church of Ireland, and to other holders of them, ought to be continued and confirined, and declared to be so in the act of Union, and not changed into any modus decimandi, or other
payment to be substituted for them; in which point I am sorry to differ from the author of the excellent pamphlet above-mentioned. But I have been satisfied from what is advanced in Dr. William Hales's Observations on Tytbes (which have been reprinted in England a few years ago, and are now to be had at Mr. White's, the bookseller in Fleet Street,) " that no other payment can be made to the clergy in lieu of tythes, but what will be subject to greater inconveniences than are found to belong to the lythes, though these may sometimes be great.” And, as to the objection often
made to the injustice of inaking the Irish peasants, who are mostly Roman-Catholicks, pay tythes to the Protestant Clergy, I beg leave to make an observation, which will at least diminish the weight of it, if not totally remove it. The burthen of paying tythes falls ultimately upon the owner of the land, and not upon the tenant or occupier of it, though the latter pays it to the rector: for, if the tythe were totally abolished, the owner of the land would immediately raise his rent upon the occupier, and make him pay an additional sum, at least equal to, and often much greater than, the tythe which he had before paid to the rectur; and thus the poor Roman-Catholick occupier of land in Ireland would be no ways benefitted by the total abolition of the tythes. I have been assured that judicious farmers in England often , prefer a tytheable farm to one of the same size and fertility that is tythe-free, because of the great addition of rent that is required for the latter, and which more than balances the tythe, or composition for tythe, usually paid to the rector for the former. Now it seems to be agreed that nine tenthparts of the Land in Ireland is the property of Protestants. Is it therefore unjust that the payment of tythes, which falls chiefly upon the Protestants, should be applied to the support
of the teachers of their religion ? If there is any injustice in the matter, it seems only to relate to the payment of tythes to the Protestant rector by a Roman Catholick occupier of such land as belongs to a Roman-Catholick owner, becaufe in that case the Roman-Catholick land-owner contributes to thc support of the Protestant religion, which he does not believe. But these cases happen but seldom, because of the small number of Roman Catholick owners of Land in Ireland; and the like irregularity happens in every coun lry wbere any particular religion is established, or its teachers are supported by any sort of payments appointed by Law; for these payments must be made by the few that do not believe the religion fo established as well as by the many who do believe it; of which we have an example here in England, in the tythes paid by Roman Catholicks, and by Quakers and other Protestant difsenters, to the clergy of the church of England. But my letter is growing rather too long, and therefore I here conclude it.